Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:00:00 AM EST

After the giant glut of the past few days, we seem to be back to a more manageable amount of news.

Senate:

NJ-Sen '18: Things are not looking so good for Sen. Bob Menendez (D). FBI agents raided the office of a South Florida doctor linked to the new Foreign Relations committee chair and his... well, Foreign Relations. For his part, Menendez says the allegations are politically motivated, which tends to be the kind of thing you say when there's no good answer to give. The timing of these investigations can be very unpredictable, but if the hammer comes down before summer, a special election would be scheduled for this November... which means it would occur on a ballot topped by Christie.

MA-Sen: Poor Barney. Patrick appoints random hack and his cronyindisputably qualified public servant Mo Cowan to Kerry's Senate seat. Cowan, of Stoughton, previously served as Patrick's Chief of Staff, and now becomes one of two African-Americans in the Senate.

AZ-Gov: Ex-Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman (R) is running. As the popular former mayor of a large and D-heavy city, Hallman should be a top-tier contender (along with SoS Ken Bennett and a host of yet-to-declare other candidates) in the R primary.

MI-Gov: In a major surprise, State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, thought to be the most likely candidate for Dems here, will not run. Her deicision probably signals that Snyder's popularity has quickly recovered after RTW. It also means Rep. Gary Peters is the lone member of their "A" list still considering a bid; expect major pressure for him to make the race now as Dems' bench beyond him is terribly thin. Next in line after Peters is probably ex-Rep. Mark Schauer.

TX-Gov: Rick Perry says AG Greg Abbott has told him he would not challenge the Governor in a R primary, even though polling shows Abbott to be a strong favorite in that matchup.

NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo's stratospheric poll numbers have come somewhat back to earth after his gun-control push. He is still very popular and safe for re-election, but for the first time it looks like there is enough passion on the right to prevent Cuomo from winning re-election with the eye-popping margins he looked headed for just weeks ago.

OH-Gov, etc: Democrats are trying to shunt ex-Rep. Betty Sutton out of a bid for Governor and into taking on one of Republicans' four statewide officeholders. This article also has a good summary on other possible D options for SoS, AG, Treasurer, and Auditor.

WATN: ex-IL Gov. George Ryan was released from Prison to home confinement yesterday.

House:

IL-2: And then there were four. State Sen. Napoleon Harris (D-Harvey), who had not gained much traction for his bid, has dropped out and endorsed former Treasurer nominee Robin Kelly. This race looks increasingly like a fight between State Sen. Toi Hutchinson and Kelly to be the main alternative to ex-Rep. Debbie Halvorson, with Chicago Ald. Anthony Beale as an also-ran. Hutchinson and Kelly seem to be going tit-for-tat in major endorsements; if one of them can gain an advantage over the other, she is probably headed for an easy victory. If they remain at parity their squabbles play to the advantage of Halvorson.

MO-8: Heading into next Saturday's convention, most of the 86 committee members were surveyed in a poll. They find a pretty fractured electorate with an unexpected name - State Rep. Jason Smith (R-Salem) - on top; however, no one is close to being a consensus candidate and most delegates are open to changing their minds. Fellow State Rep. Linda Black (D-Bonne Terre) is considered the prohibitive favorite for the D nomination.

State & Local:

NYC-Mayor: Billionare grocery magnate John Catsimatidis (R) entered the race this week, setting up a contested Republican primary with former MTA Chair Joe Lhota. Catsimatidis brings a major plus in his wealth, and also a major minus in his gaffe-prone nature.

VA-Redistricting: Two African-American Democratic State Delegates, Onzlee Ware of Roanoke and Rosalyn Dance of Petersburg, are sounding tentatively in favor of the plan. I said several days ago that Dance would be a front-runner for the new black-majority seat in Southern VA; Ware's motivations are somewhat less obvious, but he seems to be slightly mavericky in general.

WATN: ex-NYS Sen. Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica, Queens), who was defeated in the primary this year after being indicted on embezzlement charges, will be joining quite a few of her former colleagues at a very popular post-Albany destination: the Big House.

"Here's an opportunity where I can actually have a great impact on African Americans, yet at the same time, it doesn't help the entire Democratic Party," Ware said. "Should I always have to forgo the interests of black people for the good of the party? . . . I have a real dilemma on my hands right now."

"I don't like the process," Dance said. "But the irony of ironies is, it's going to be hard for us [to vote against the plan] as African Americans because they create a minority seat."

And I'm sure if the whistle blower didnt tip off the Daily Caller Sen Menendez would have wrote that $58,000 check in 3 weeks ago. After all who doesnt wait 2 1/2 years to reimburse their buddies for joy rides to the DR!

Terry McAuliffe is mentioned as a good friend of Dr. Salomon Melgen, the man at the center of the Menendez-FBI-Prostitituion story. You really don't want to be associated with anyone the FBI is raiding. It's a good thing McAuliffe is out of the public eye.... Oh wait.

The rule in NJ is the Gov appoints a new Senator and a special election has to be held at the next scheduled special election to fill the remainder of the term. If the vacancy occurs 30 days before the June 11th NJ primary that special election will be Nov 2013. If it occurs after it will be Nov 2014. So May 12th is the date that will determine a 2012 or 2014 election. Also if Menendez does resign (or gets arrested) I wonder which senate seat Booker runs for? If elections for both seats occur on Nov 2014 would Lautenberg run for the 4 year term and Booker the 6 year? Menendez going down could be Lautenberg's key to staying in the senate!

though she's a bit on the old side. Remember that the State Legislators are the least likely to run in '13 though as they smell a possible majority - I'd bet on a congressman (Lance or Runyan seem most likely, but Smith has indicated some interest in a statewide bid as well) or someone not in office as the nominee for that race.

I think he's the most obvious appointee if there is a vacancy. The Kean name still carries weight in NJ and Kean Jr. would give the GOP there best at holding the seat. Both father & son are close allies with Christie so I could see this as a real possibility.

1. Chaffee is just plain dumb... I mean, what other governor could turn a freakin' Christmas tree lighting into a source of controversy! His agenda has also featured something to offend just about everyone, and he has no real base of support to draw from.

2. The Moderate Party is Ken Block's personal creation to support his gubernatorial candidacies. AFAIK he has basically a centrist to slightly left-of-center Angus King-style platform, whereas Chaffee is to the left of the Democrats in the state. Block probably draws equally from both D and R.

The Democratic bench is pretty low in PA-8 now. Santierio is moving up in the leadership. One of the other state reps is a drunkard whose allied with Lou Barletta on immigration. The other is a no name.

It does strike me as an odd list. Joyce, Southerland, and Bachmann are all in fairly Republican districts. I think 2012 may be as vulnerable as they were going to get. With Grimm as well. You also run into the RI-1 dilemma. If you beat the vulnerable Republican, you just lose it next time. Joe Heck won by 8. I don't see him as that vulnerable. On the other hand, David Valadao, Jeff Denham, Jon Runyan, and Chris Gibson aren't on the list.

If Democrats were smart they'd try to push Frank Wolf, Frank LoBiondo, and Bill Young into retirement.

Dem turnout in central valley districts usually craters in midterms. They'll probably make much more of a push in those seats in 2016. Heck is probably about as vulnerable as Runyan, they're both in purple districts but won with room to spare in 2012.

I don't know if you've read all my diaries on California where I've covered this. The Central Valley is a graveyard for Democrats and that makes winning CA-21, and a lesser extent CA-10, tough. But Democrats won a bunch of seats in Riverside County and won assembly seats in the Antelope Valley and Fullerton. All of those used to be impossibilities.

CA-21 was D+4 and CA-10 was E in 2012. You can't ignore those and they'll be easier to hold than MN-6, which will flip back in the next election.

I don't see Heck as being vulnerable. The district went from D+1 to R+2 and he easily beat back the challenge despite the Democratic machine for Obama and Berkley.

Yeah, his district's PVI got bluer, but it's pretty polarized. McCain got 52.0%, while Romney got 52.3%. You'd think that since Southerland had a serious opponent and there are some downbalot Dixiecrats outside of Tallahassee, Southerland might have barely won reelection. However, he outperformed Romney slightly, winning with 53.0%. There are probably a few Democrats out there who could give Southerland a run for his money in a good Democratic year (probably a state rep or rural county official). Even so, Southerland's Panama City base could very well grow ahead of the rest of the district (other coastal areas too) and in ten years, if Florida adds another district or two, the district will shift west and get redder.

"Other Republicans who have been mentioned as possible challengers to Begich include state Sen. Lesil McGuire, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan and a Department of Natural Resources commissioner (and former attorney general) also named Dan Sullivan."

I feel as though Markey would be the stronger candidate against Brown. Given the fact that it will be a low turnout special election anyways, having all the Democrats stay home or vote for the pro-choice Brown on social issues, because its not like pro-life Republicans will back Lynch over Brown. I don't always think that the more Liberal candidate is the most electable, quite the opposite generally. But in Massachusetts in a special election, with Brown on the ticket, I think that is the case here. This is evidenced in the poll as well, with Markey outperforming Lynch head-to-head against Brown. Also, Markey has higher approvals than Lynch.

I wasn't talking about a primary situation here. I would have voted for Castle because O'Donnell was unelectable. I'm talking about a general election in which you have a pro-life Democrat vs. a pro-choice Republican. Personally, I'd vote for the Democrat.

Massachusetts has so few Republicans that if you're a member of the GOP it's because you won't vote Democratic under any circumstances. The state has a good share of independents who'll usually vote Republican, but register as independent because in many areas voting in the Democratic primary is voting in the general election.

Lynch isn't dangerous with pro-life movement conservatives. He's dangerous with pro-life blue collar independents and Democrats who like Scott Brown as a regular guy who gets it. They can be picked off by a Republican when you have a Massachusetts liberal running. Lynch should do much bette with them than another Democrat would.

If it was a bona fide pro-choice Republican vs. a bona fide pro-life Democrat. But I don't think that applies here. Brown is no more than moderately pro-choice, and although Lynch did oppose Obamacare, he isn't any more than moderately pro-life. Lynch would be left of Brown on almost every other issue too, so I would still vote for Brown in this case.

I suspect Brown would garner about 15 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 90 percent of Republicans against either of them. The question's whether turnout looks more like 2010 or 2012.

There are two effects here that probably just about cancel each other out perfectly. Lynch probably does 5-10 points better with indies and Republicans than Markey while holding about the same share of the D vote. On the other hand, D turnout is likely to be depressed by a couple points with Lynch due to single-issue social liberals staying home.

If Lynch beats Markey he'll just have pulled a huge upset and will have all the momentum in the world plus positive media attention on his side. Independents will be content that they "sent a message" to DC and won't feel compelled to vote Republican to shake things up.

Plus, Lynch would win voters that Brown simply can't afford to lose. I don't see the Weld '90 coalition coming together for Brown. Liberals today will find a reason to vote for the Dem in every situation.

Talking to liberal democratic activist types that form the troops on the ground for GOTV etc. They said they would not lift a finger if Lynch wins the primary. Not sure if Lynch's union connections would be enough to make up the difference.

Unlike the last special election--January 2010--this one isn't for a "legacy" Senate seat. June 25th will be in the middle of the first full week of summer vacation, meaning many voters will be out of state on vacation. January 2010/s turnout was 54 percent. I'd be shocked if this one goes over 46 or so.

If he's a no, which he definitely is now, Ayotte, Collins, Kirk and possibly Chambliss and Murkowski will follow suit, leaving Hagel with just one GOP vote (Cochran, who's already stated his intention to do so). Among Democrats, I imagine the only possible defections are Johnson, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Begich and Pryor. For the Senate GOP to filibuster, I suspect they'll need at least a couple of those Dems (probably the three up for re-election) to oppose.

Is German media utterly clueless that Hagel has pretty much left the party or are they trying to jab Republicans the way Barack Obama does when he finds obscure quotes from old Republicans and takes them out of context?

Of course, I doubt they're embracing Hagel's views on abortion, gay marriage, and all the other issues that are irrelevant to his nomination.

These are our politicians and our country. Most of our issues don't impact them. Our media doesn't care about internal German issues.

I'm remembering meeting an Australian around the time of the Iraq War. She told me she hated George Bush because "when he makes policy he doesn't care what we [Australians] think." As if he's supposed to.

in German media - To keep people informed on what's going on around the entire world, you'll find dozens of articles about international politics on the webpage of an online newspaper per day. It's something I enjoy very much, it's "just" that even the so-called more conservative news outlets are leaning very far to the left when it comes to US politics.

The Norwegian media do the exact same thing, and almost never do you see an attempt at presenting or explaining that there may be two sides to any given issue. Even the guy who was then chairman of Democrats Abroad in Norway told me some years ago that the Norwegian press was extremely one-sided in their treatment of US politics.

I've heard from a good friend of mine in Norway that both Dems and Reps Abroad are very active there. The German Republicans Abroad are pretty much dead. I contacted the "Chairman" in September and got a "We're working on something" reply in late September. Now they've purchased a new webpage, look at this beautiful thing: http://www.republicansabroad.de/ It's been this way since October, I believe.

Back to topic: It's almost pathological. And of course, people always believe that stuff that they're being fed, so they most of the time don't know anything - which gives me an advantage when talking US politics with them. :D

The general rule of thumb is for Europeans when it comes to US politics: Democrats are the good guys, the Republicans are the bad guys. Period.

There are more Dems, but there's still a good number of Republicans too. And they cooperate in terms of voter registration and arranging the 4th of July event in Oslo every year (always on the last Sunday preceding the 4th). There are several non-partisan groups too, plus some Norwegians, mostly married to a yank or offspring thereof.

And then you have the plain crazy ones who are just obsessed with the US in our spare time, such as moi.

I suppose my interest in Republican politics came because very early on in my life I noticed that everything I supported or admired in politics seemed to be exemplified by the United States and its people. Everything that I and other conservatives in Europe seemed to advocate for seemed to be more embedded in the US. Even in primary school I couldn't bare this new fashionable anti-americanism, viscerally couldn't bare it. In fact I was thrown out of class once for one particularly animated defense of the US during the Iraq War.

Anyway as I looked at this fascinating country I noticed one party extolling the virtues of this unique American exceptionalism and another attempting to reign it in. Now I must say, I have absolutely no right to interfere or cast judgement on your internal political decisions, and I do not doubt the sincerity of liberals in America, most genuinely hope to better their nation. But when I listen to George Will, WF Buckley or Reagan or read about the founding fathers and US history I simply cannot remain disinterested.

I must add that I'm living in a pretty conservative country. We have a (relatively) small state, low taxes, light regulation, high level of Church attendance, strong families, and abortion remains virtually outlawed. he consensus here is decidedly pro-american, albeit pro-democrat.

A former Tánaiste (Deputy prime minister) here once announced proudly "We as a nation remain closer to Boston than Berlin", and a consensus of Irish people want to remain there.

I've been interested in the US for as long as I can remember. I actually taught myself to read when I was four so I could read the subtitles on American movies and tv series on Norwegian TV. I could hardly wait to begin learning English when I was ten.

Since then I've been to all fifty states and have made many friends both left and right in the US. I've read numerous books, magazines, blogs, etc etc from all walks of life.

Also, in pretty much any European social democracy, you'll still find a wide array of political views that are anything but. Norway is a small and relatively homogeneous country, but there are still thousands of libertarians and on the opposite wing, thousands of commies here - indeed there are millions of people from all sides of the political spectrum in the US, so I just don't understand why we should be any different over here.

Just because you're born and raised in a system doesn't mean you agree with it, and even if you do, that you can't understand how a different history can lead other nations and peoples to a different conclusion.

I know people here who would make Tom Coburn look like Noam Chomsky. America for all its successes, did not invent Libertarianism or the Right.

Margaret Thatcher was elected in a country so dirigiste, that government inspectors would come around to businesses every month and looked through the books to ensure that no worker received a wage above what the state allowed.

Some truths, as you founders put it, are self-evident. You do not need to be in America to realize them. They're universal.

Another aspect we haven't touched upon much to explain our interest in the US is the large influx of migrants. Norway was actually the country that sent the 2nd largest percentage of its population to America - after Ireland.

There are areas of Norway that still to this day have very strong ties to America, for example there's this town in the south of the country called Lista, where you have lots of American cars, and where people have incorporated American words into their everyday Norwegian to a whole 'nother level than your average potatoeater. There's Brooklyn square and the local store sells American foodstuff.

We're obsessed with our diaspora here. Immensely proud of their contribution. It was so interesting that when our particularly tough recession hit thousands of young Irish migrated once again to the east coast. It's a right of passage for every young Irish Student to do at least a Summer working as a waiter or something in some US city.

Stephen Fry was talking about Americans and he said apart of course from most African Americans and Native Americans, every American can trace their lineage to people who looked at their lives and said to themselves, there has to be more than this. People who were prepared to risk their livelihoods and journey into a great unknown. From Irish and Norwegian farmers, Russian Jews, British Calvanists, German peasants, and so and so to this very day. Americans have therefore built into them that pioneering gene that imbues them "to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield" for lack of a better expression. Europeans are the descendants of those people's siblings who looked around them and said "It's not that bad, is it?" And they paid their tithes to the king and so on and did what they were told and so on. Now that's a terribly simplistic analysis, but there's more than a grain of truth there.

First, you'd need to come up with a reasonable definition of "European", and I guess in the context of this conversation also a definition of "American"? I think I'm much more northern European than generic European, if that makes any sense, and although I am a staunch atheist I am culturally a Scandinavian Lutheran. I carry with me certain basic values or at least the knowledge thereof.

I usually say that I have one foot on each continent; I am of Europe, but much of my heart and head lies across the ocean. Whenever I travel to the US I have this strange feeling that I'm going home, even though I was 26 the first time I flew over. Might simply be self suggestion from all the umpteen cultural references I have pertaining to the US, but I get goosebumps and a lump in my throat every time I fly in.

I ask because although officially European, Irish people have a very weak cultural connection to the Mainland. Few Irish would describe themselves as European, like the British in that regard. We would still say we're going to Europe on our holidays. I'd love to see us one day leave the EU and join you EFTA. Some day perhaps.

Once last thing, how are the Progress Party and Siv Jensen doing these days? I was really looking forward to her becoming prime minister. I know their support dived after Utøya, have they recovered at all?

The Conservatives are at 30-40% in the polls now, with the Progress Party around 12-15%. In some polls the two parties actually have 50% together, which could mean a political landslide if that's the election result. But there is no doubt the Conservatives will get the PM in any rightwing government with these numbers.

Personally I am actually quite happy with that, even though I'll pinch my nose and vote for Jensen. I know a lot of people in her party (I used to be heavily involved with it 20 years ago) and they're just not ready for that kind of responsibility, generally speaking.

There is a handful of very smart, solid, qualified people, but on average they're still not a mature political party and can't necessarily be trusted to act responsibly. They need the Conservatives to temper them and some experience with governing.

I've been saying that for years. Most of our immigrants were people who came over here with nothing other than the idea that if they worked hard they'd succeed. They not only expected no help from the government, but they were likely fleeing an intrusive government.

Their brothers were the ones who said, "Are you crazy? There's no way you'll succeed and if you do it'll be way too much hard work." After World War II, Europe was devastated. People had nothing and no choice but to look to the state to help them.

To me, American Exceptionalism is that our ancestors were the exceptional ones and the less exceptional ones stayed behind. Our parents taught us this and the parents in Europe taught their children that no business should stay open after 6 because then everyone would have to compete. What makes us great is that your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses yearning to breathe free were great. My ancestors were among them.

I apologize for being provincial in thinking that you guys can't understand American conservatism or libertarianism, but our ideas seem entirely excluded from your political spectrum. Most of the Europeans and Canadians I know don't understand it and they live here!

I love Europe and have been many times, especially to those ares that make good beer. I have little interest in your elections and governments because they don't impact me. I applaud you for not only trying to understand what we're about but actually finding our ideas good ones. Although I can't really see why you should find a special election in Southeast Missouri fascinating.

The fact is, the US is far and away the most militarily powerful country in the world, and its not afraid to flex its muscles on foreign policy, as well what happens to the US economy has a huge influence on how the global economy is. That's a large chunk of US issues which directly affect every single person in the world.

Also people are just interested in other countries- it's why our media covers the French, Italian, Venezuelan and German elections- in many ways I'd say america, by virtue of it being so big, is the exception rather than the rule.

I understand making judgements on American policy toward your country, Iraq or Iran, and even American international monetary policy. I don't get the idea that anyone but Americans should have an opinion on American policy on internal social or fiscal issues.

Maybe it's just the libertarian in me, but I don't believe it's any of my business who Egyptians choose as their democratically elected leaders. Sure, I'd prefer someone pro-American and pro-Israel, but that's up to Egyptians.

I suppose when you're social democrats, you feel that you not only should tell your own countrymen what to do, but what people in other countries should too. I guess that people who view the American Democratic party as being too far to the right can't comprehend libertarianism.

No one on this board is being entirely honest if they say they only have opinions on elections or policies which directly affect them. Why else would there be features on the virginia state senate with many comments from people from SEPA or CA or NYC or IL or TX. The simple fact is its human nature to have opinions on things which don't affect you.

I'm not going to deny that I'm fascinated by other countries politics and that I prefer some foreign politicians over other. It even happens here in the UK. Just last May I stayed up to watch the local elections count even though I don't live in London or Birmingham (I'll also note that there was talk about the London mayoral election even on RRH) That doesn't mean I feel entitled to a veto over who gets elected, but it does mean I have preferences, and as proven on this very board these preferences are not confined to those of us who are left wing

... and it has much more political sway in western Europe than America.

I don't know why you don't understand caring what happens in other countries. We're all neighbors in an international community, and we're all bound together by our fellow humanity. If you care about your local neighbors, you should care about your international neighbors. If you care about what happens to people on the next block over, you should care about what happens to people in the next continent over, and I don't think that has anything to do with left-right politics.

I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't care, or that it says anything bad about you if you don't, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why some people do.

That doesn't mean that Bush or Obama or whatever necessarily should care about the impact on other countries-- I don't think the US President should consider anything other than the value Americans draw from a policy-- but it does make it legitimate for people abroad to care.

If your economy crashes again, it'll drag everyone down with it. Americans do care about the Euro crisis, after all-- or at least they should.

Last night a bunch of political insiders and party leaders gathered for their pre-meeting. It was labeled "where do we go from here?" I was not personally in attendance, but an acquaintance of mine went and said it was not a positive enqvironment. Although it was mentioned that if the big meeting next month has the same kind of attendees, Paulites could easily nominate a chairman of their choosing, if such a candidate exists.y money is still on Downey to take over the reigns.

Bill Paulsen is his name. He helped spearhead the Paulite-Quist alliance in CD1 and put in a lot of work in that race this cycle.

Also at this event, cars in the parking lot were hit with Draft Emmer flyers- that is, Tom Emmer, the former State Rep. and now successful radio host who ran for Governor in 2010 and lost to Governor Dayton- for a gubernatorial bid.

Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional district now spans five counties, and DKE had accurate Presidential numbers by precinct for four of the five counties in the 7th district. Delaware County (unsurprisingly) refuses to publish its precinct results online, so I borrowed a friend's car, brought $15, and paid for copies of each 7th district precinct that came from a township that was split between PA-01 and PA-07 to be made and sent to me.

If anyone wants that precinct data in PDF format, I can email it to you. I suppose you can email me at the junk email I have on my RRH profile.

From IL-09, familial roots in MI-14, college in PA-02/07, and currently living in Barcelona.
Mark Kirk for Senate, Scott Walker for President!

Former state Rep. Brian Flaherty (R-Watertown) is interested in challenging US Rep. Elizabeth Esty in 2014. Flaherty, considered in political circles as being a Republican who can actually win election in blue state Connecticut, tells The Hanging Shad he is not interested in a run for the governor's office, but if family and professional considerations fall into line, he'd be interested in a congressional run.
...
Republican Andrew Roraback lost to Esty because he couldn't make a dent in the district's cities. There's a good chance Flaherty could. From Watertown, outside Waterbury, he served in the state House from 1988 (when he was 23) until 2005. During that time, he won multiple accolades and not just from Republicans.

Flaherty was ranked as one of the top 10 most effective House members. He was also honored as "Legislator of the Year" by the Connecticut Library Association, the Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce, the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, and the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges. Pretty impressive.

This guy sounds formidable. He seems to have the right profile to win over enough votes from each faction in the 5th district and I bet he could fundraise quite well.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), in comments reported by the Star-Ledger, left open the possibility that the allegations against Menendez could have merit:
"If there are infractions as they are reported, it's too bad," Lautenberg told reporters.
...
"There a lot that's said and covered, but I for one know Bob as a very capable United States senator, and I'm sorry to see him in this position," Lautenberg said. "But I can't give you anything more. Don't want to. Don't know to."
...
Lautenberg later added he had not spoken to Menendez about the accusations but called them "devastating."

Menendez resigning after May 12th is Lautenberg's best shot at staying in the Senate!

Having 2 Senate elections in NJ in 2014 works to Lautenberg's advantage. He could run for special and stay in the Senate to serve out the remaining 4 years on Menendez's term while Booker runs for the 6 year Lautenberg term.

That would be kinda hilarious actually. I can't think of anyone else who's hopped Senate seats, and then hopped back.

Also, why wouldn't he just run for re-election as normal and let Booker run for the special? Its not like it changes much which class of Senator you are, and it gives Lautenberg 6 more years before he has to decide whether or not to hang it up again.

New Mexico, 1928. Octavio Larazolo (R) def. Juan Vigil (D) for the lame-duck term. Because the full term was on the ballot at the same time appointee Bronson Cutting could not run for the lame duck so both parties nominated Hispanic candidates for the inconsequential post as a naked pander.

Unless you mean two different minority groups running against each other. In that case I think the answer would be MA 2012 where you had a Native American running against a Massachusetts Republican (which is one of the smallest minority groups in America).

I just hear Rand Paul on Hugh Hewitt and I'm surprised on how close to the party line he sounds on foreign policy. It isn't the first time. I guess I expect him to sound like Ron Paul, but maybe he's going mainstream with an eye toward a Presidential run. I imagine some of his statements will anger Paulistas but it's not like they are going Jindal for 2016. And you can't win the nomination by just appealing to libertarians.

There's some !1!1! across the internet from conservative activists in Massachusetts that the second vote, decided by a 41-39 margin after an initial vote was tied, was rigged but Rick Green, the candidate who narrowly lost, introduced Hughes as a sign of unity.

RedMassGroup is fairly interesting to read tonight.

From IL-09, familial roots in MI-14, college in PA-02/07, and currently living in Barcelona.
Mark Kirk for Senate, Scott Walker for President!

There's an organization, MARA, that gets the conservative "activists" really fired up about the Chairman election, as if its an influential position on ideological determinations.

I'm kind of a Brown lacky, in that if he thinks Hughes will help him out, we should probably do that considering he's the only one that knows how to win stuff. Then again, I liked Rick Green's story and personality a little better, and he's from my neck of the woods.

He came in during a tough time for the party, we'd just lost the Governorship, the party's finances were horrific, and the national mood was decidedly anti-Republican. My understanding was he cleaned up the party's financial problems, and he helped Ogonowski tap into the MassGOP fundraising network and GOTV efforts, and we nearly picked that seat off. He didn't stay on for a Gubernatorial cycle, so can only judge him on 2008. It was a bad year all the way around, and while he could have pushed more candidates to run (it was abysmally low that year), the result would have been the same. We lost a couple more State Rep seats that year, help the 5 in the Senate. Struck out against Kerry and the 10 Congressionals. So, nothing positive to see there.

I think Torkildsen was in between jobs, and was ready to move back to the private sector, and so he did. His successor Nassour picked up where he left off on fundraising and what not, and of course was on hand while Brown won in 2010. So Torkildsen should be credited for righting the ship somewhat. Torkildsen did a good job at listening to the grassroots, and tried to get the MassGOP more tech oriented, which it still struggles with today.

Chas Roemer, Buddy's son and chairman of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, is "seriously considering" a run for Senate. Roemer has always been viewed as a likely LA-06 candidate, and is probably going to talk up a Senate run to build name rec for his LA-06 campaign

Hopefully Menendez falls early enough to go this year. We'll have massive Christie coattails. Pallone will not be able to pass up the chance to run without giving up his seat. Booker will not pass up the chance to run and not face an incumbent. That'd be a primary to see with Pallone's cash.

That seems like quite the task, especially with almost all of eastern Connecticut being uniformly just too blue for us to win in. What do you think our ceiling in the CT Senate would be and which districts could we conceivably pick up? Perhaps I should diary the new map...

From IL-09, familial roots in MI-14, college in PA-02/07, and currently living in Barcelona.
Mark Kirk for Senate, Scott Walker for President!

GOP holds 7 due to a longtime incumbent (Kissel) and seat probably flips without him. Same with 35 (Giulimermo). Welch in 31 flipped a long time D seat.
On the plus side we have chances in 4 and maybe 17. And the D in 15 is a crypto-Republican

For those that don't know, we are having our LA mayoral primary in March. The four top candidates are City councilman Eric Garcetti, city controller Wendy Greuel, Councilwoman Jan Perry, and broadcaster Kevin James.

Garcetti is the only Hispanic of the four. Both he and Perry are Jewish. Perry is the only Black candidate. James is the only Republican in the field.